Sola Scriptura II (White vs Matatics)

The Debate Over Sola Scriptura and Ultimate Authority

It is good to be with you. I come from Phoenix, Arizona, where today was 105 degrees, so you can all be thankful that you have such beautiful weather here this evening. I'm going back to it tomorrow, and I'm looking forward to it, actually.

Some of us are rather strange folks. If you were here last year, how many of you were here for the debate last year? That's only about a third. Jerry was here. Good. Over and over again, as we discussed the Marian doctrines last year, we came to the conclusion that one of the things we needed to deal with was the issue of ultimate authority, the issue of where we derive religious truth.

And the issue of sola scriptura has been, in my experience, the particular focus of the new generation of Roman Catholic apologists. In fact, there's a book out, edited by Patrick Madrid, called Surprised by Truth.

And in that book, eight of the 11 converts to Roman Catholicism mention sola scriptura as having a major part in their conversion to Roman Catholicism. So it's been my experience that Roman Catholic apologists sort of feel like this is their big issue.

In actuality, I think that it is not. I believe that when we understand what sola scriptura is, and when we recognize the opposing claim that's being made, which is rarely brought forward openly, and that is the claim to authority on the part of the Roman Catholic Church, that the scriptures speak very plainly as to how we decide this issue.

Not only that, but the early church fathers, I believe, spoke very plainly on this issue. The great Bishop of Jerusalem, Cyril, in instructing new believers, individuals who were just coming into the faith, uttered these words, quote, in regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the holy scriptures.

Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the holy scriptures the proof of the things which I announce.

The salvation which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the holy scriptures. And another theodoretic, one of the early fathers of the church, wrote a book in which he presented a dialogue between an orthodox believer and one who had been led astray.

And at one point in the conversation, he has one of his imaginary disputants utter these words, quote, the doctrine of the church should be proven, not announced. Therefore, show that the scriptures teach these things, end quote.

That's my position. That's what I believe. I come this evening in the spirit of this ancient writer, not merely to announce to you some doctrine on my own authority, but to prove the truth of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and to show that the scriptures do, in point of fact, teach their own sufficiency to act as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church.

And I contrast my position with that found in the popular Roman Catholic writer, John O 'Brien, who has written, quote, great as is our reverence for the Bible, reason and experience compel us to say that it alone is not a competent nor a safe guide as to what we are to believe, end quote.

I hope Mr. Matitix will tell us if he likewise used the Bible as John O 'Brien did. Now, there are two positions being presented this evening, Sola Scriptura and what I call Sola Ecclesia. That is, I believe that the Bible is the ultimate and only infallible authority in the Christian faith, while Rome claims that she, in fact, is the ultimate infallible authority.

Hence, Sola Scriptura versus Sola Ecclesia. Now, you might say, well, I'm not sure that Rome makes that claim, but I'd like you to reason with me for just for a moment. Rome claims that she has ultimate authority to define the content of scripture, that is, to determine the canon of scripture, what is and what is not scripture.

She likewise claims the ultimate and infallible authority to determine the meaning and interpretation of scripture as well. Likewise, she claims ultimate infallible authority to determine the extent of tradition, whatever that is.

That is, she alone can tell you what is and what is not true tradition. And, of course, she claims the ultimate authority to determine what tradition does and does not teach. Hence, while she claims to be the servant of the scriptures and tradition, in reality, she is the master determining what scripture is and what it means, what tradition is and what it means.

If you define those two sources and you claim to be the only one who knows what those two sources say, you cannot be logically subservient to those two sources. Now, while I have tried to get Roman Catholic apologists to defend the positive claim that Rome has ultimate authority in religious matters, I have yet to get anyone to actually defend Rome's claims on these subjects.

Now, it is vital to remember throughout this debate, because it can be a complex debate, we are talking about ultimate authorities in the field of knowledge and religious truth. It is important to remember throughout the debate that there are two sides being presented, for sometimes that can be lost in all the details.

Now, the doctrine of sola scriptura is really rather straightforward, but in my experience, it is rarely, rarely represented accurately by modern Roman Catholic apologists, both in debate as well as in their written documents.

Sola scriptura, briefly stated, is simply this. Because the scriptures are the only example of God-breathed revelation in the possession of the church, they form the only infallible rule of faith for the church.

In other words, since the Bible is, and the Greek term that Paul uses in 2 Timothy 3 .16 is theionoustos, God-breathed, then it provides to us the very voice of God. Remember in Matthew 22, verse 31, when the Lord Jesus held people accountable to what they read in scripture as God speaking to them, he said to those individuals, have you not read what God spoke to you saying?

The scriptures are God speaking to us, they are God-breathed. God's voice can admit of no higher or equal authority. It is the ultimate authority in all things, for God cannot refer to any higher authority than himself to establish the truthfulness of what he says.

It is, by definition, an absolute authority. Now, sola scriptura denies that there is another infallible rule of faith in the church. There may be other rules, but they are not infallible, and they are subject to the correction of the highest authority, and that is scripture.

As Augustine put it, what more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For holy scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the teacher.

And again elsewhere he put it this way, neither dare one agree with Catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical scriptures of God. Now, it would probably help us this evening to know what sola scriptura is not.

What isn't it? Well, first of all, it is not a denial that God's word has at times been in oral form during those periods of inscripturation or revelation. One of the most common errors in Roman Catholic apologists is to point to times when scripture was being given as if that is normative for the church and use that to deny sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura refers to the normative situation of the church, not the exceptional situation that takes place when you have apostles and prophets on the earth who are giving revelation and scripture.

Roman Catholicism agrees with us that revelation has ceased in the sense of special revelation, canonical revelation, and scripture. Secondly, it is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in leading and guiding the church.

We are not saying that the Holy Spirit is not important in understanding scripture. In fact, all of the historic Protestant confessions confess the fact that outside of the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, we will never be obedient to or have understanding of those scriptures.

Thirdly, it is not an assertion that the Bible contains all knowledge. Over and over again, Roman Catholic apologists cite John 21 -25. And they cite the passages that say, well, if everything that Jesus had done had been written down, the world itself could not contain the books that would be written, as if that is somehow relevant to sola scriptura.

Karl Keating does this in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. But all that demonstrates is that Karl Keating doesn't know what sola scriptura means. It is not the case that you must know the color of the eyes of all the disciples, the wardrobe that they wore, the menu at all of the apostolic meals for scripture to be the sufficient and sole infallible rule of faith of the church.

It is not a claim that the scriptures are exhaustive, but that they are sufficient, and there is a difference between the two. It is not an assertion that we can learn nothing from the generations that have come before us.

It is not a claim that we have to go back 2 ,000 years and reinvent the wheel with each new generation. We can learn many things from the godly men and what they have done in the church over past generations, but the ultimate authority for every generation is always the scriptures, never the church.

There are also a lot of common misunderstandings about the doctrine that we should dismiss immediately. For example, the single worst argument against sola scriptura goes something like this. Sola scriptura is the blueprint for anarchy.

Look at what has happened. There are 23 ,000 Protestant denominations. Sola scriptura is an utter failure. I've heard that argument over and over and over again. And yet, if we think about that argument for just a few moments, we realize it is a self-refuting argument, and it is an inconsistent argument.

The misuse of a sufficient source is not a valid argument against that source. There are many people today who are purchasing computers, and I love seeing a person who's never seen a computer before when they get their first one.

It's sort of comical, really, as they look at that thing, and they start looking for the on switch, and they're not really sure what to do with this thing, and there's all these cables sticking out of it.

And it's somewhat funny when you've worked with computers for a long time to watch a person who has never seen one of these things before, and they all come with manuals. But how many of you have read all the manuals that came with your computer?

There's a man back there who's lying, but get that person right there. Now that manual will tell you everything you need to know. But how many, never had a manual amen before, but how many people misuse the manual?

They skip over sections. They ignore sections. They only read the sections that have the pictures in them. Whatever it might be, they misuse the source. If they followed the manuals, the thing would work right, but most people don't follow the manual.

So what are you supposed to do? Say that the reason that people are confused about how their computer works is because the manuals aren't good enough? Well, if you haven't read it, and you didn't read all of it, and you didn't take it in context, how can you say that?

Well, in the exact same way. Just because people pick and choose sections of the Bible to believe and which not to believe, just because people bring in outside authorities over the Bible, is not the fault of the Bible.

It's the fault of the user. It's the fault of the person coming to the scriptures. And just because there are people who do not want to take the Bible in its fullness, do not want to read everything that the scriptures say, does not mean that the Bible in itself is insufficient to accomplish that task.

But most obviously, Sola Scriptura, the doctrine, does not claim that there will be an absolute unanimity of opinion. There were errors and heresies in the days of the apostles. Just as it would have been ridiculous to say that the apostles were insufficient leaders in the church just because errors and heresies crept in during their ministries, and because men were willing to twist what the apostles taught and wrote to their own destruction, so it is without merit to say that since men misuse the scriptures today, those scriptures are insufficient as the infallible rule of faith.

Such an assertion assumes that the rule of faith is supposed to do away with the sinfulness and rebellion of man, the errors men make due to traditions and prejudices, and make men incapable of error, and that's not what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura says.

Historic Protestants have always asserted that there are difficult passages in the Bible, things that are hard to understand that we must apply our minds and hearts to be diligent students of the word.

Protestants believe that God will hold each man and woman accountable and responsible for his truth. We will not be able to say, well, such and such a person told me to believe that. No, God will hold us accountable.

And finally, this argument is very bad because if you simply look at the Roman Catholic Church today, you will find a tremendous amount of disagreement and divergence amongst those who name the name of Rome.

Does that mean the magisterium is insufficient because it does not result in absolute unanimity? Mr. Matics disagrees with even other Roman Catholic apologists. Does that mean that the magisterium and the pronouncements, the infallible pronouncements of the church are insufficient because they don't produce unanimous opinion?

Well, obviously not. What we're talking about this evening is that everyone has ultimate authorities. My Mormon friends, my Jehovah's Witness friends down there not too far from here have ultimate authorities too.

When Mr. Matics made a decision to embrace the authority of Rome, that was a fallible decision. He could have chosen another ultimate authority. He could have chosen another system of belief. When he made that decision, it was a fallible decision and hence everything that comes after that can be no more certain than the decision he made in embracing that authority.

Such a decision of embracing authority outside of Scripture is not to be found within Scripture itself. Matthew 18 is often misused to make the church the final source of truth. Instead, I point out to you, we find John commending the church at Ephesus in the book of Revelation for testing those who claim to be apostles.

And just as the Bereans had done in Acts chapter 17, when the apostles come preaching God's truth, they search the Scriptures daily to see whether those things are actually so. Now someone may well say, but Mr. White, the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

And I can only say, amen, it most certainly is. I love the church of Jesus Christ, but what does a pillar and foundation do? The pillar and foundation holds something else up. And what does the church do?

The church holds up the truth of God for all men to see and proclaims that truth to all men. But she never confuses herself with the truth itself. The church is the body of Christ and she hears Christ speaking to her in his word.

She never substitutes herself for the voice of her master. Only the Scriptures are theanustos. The church is never described as being God breathed, but God's word is. Now Mr. Matiticks, in the last time we debated this issue, claimed that tradition, whatever that might be, and I'll let him define his particular viewpoint on it, is inspired.

And in taking that particular viewpoint, he stands in the same tradition that you find, for example, the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent, the original draft of the Document on Tradition in Scripture, said that God's revelation and God's truth comes to us in two forms.

It comes partly, it's called partum partum, partly in the written Scriptures and partly in the oral traditions. Hence, if you only have the written Scriptures, you don't have everything that God intends us to have.

You have to have the oral traditions along with. Now there are many Roman Catholic apologists today who don't hold that viewpoint. They no longer hold to that particular perspective that was in the majority of the Council of Trent.

But if he still holds, as he did a few years ago, that tradition is inspired, then he would probably want to refer to 2 Thessalonians 2 .15 as one of the passages that is frequently used to attempt to present some foundation for the idea that we need to have an infallible magisterium in the Roman Catholic Church to have everything God would have us to know.

Now 2 Thessalonians 2 .15, if you're not familiar with it, says, so then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. And so the argument goes like this.

These traditions are presented by word of mouth orally and by letter from us. And here you have a command to hold to these traditions. And as I recall, Mr. Matitick said, Mr. White, why don't you keep this command any longer?

Where are your oral traditions? However, if we look at the passage, we discover that this is a great misuse of the passage. First of all, there is only one body of truth in view here. It is one set of traditions delivered two ways, by preaching when Paul was amongst the Thessalonians and by letter, that is, 1 Thessalonians.

The entire church at Thessalonica had already been taught these items. These are not then teachings that are limited to the bishops, but are generally known truths that every person in the church knew and believed.

Hence, any claim that the oral component contains anything other than what is found in the written component requires the defender of such a position to prove from the writings of the early church that these things were generally known and believed by the Christian people.

We will see that when we look at the doctrines that have been infallibly and clearly defined by Rome on the basis of tradition, that these doctrines are uniformly, utterly unknown in the early church.

But all of this involves a gross misreading of the text. Paul is in no way talking about some extra scriptural revelation in this passage. Instead, when we read the passage in its own immediate context, we find he is talking about something much more easily defined, my friends, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Paul taught the Thessalonians the gospel, both in person as well as by his first letter to the Thessalonians. This can be seen by the fact that the term Paul uses when exhorting us to stand firm in these traditions is also used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 16 .13 when he says to stand firm in the faith.

Paul is not giving us a command here to hold to oral traditions. He is giving us a command to hold to the gospel itself. I'd like to ask some questions of us in regards to other Christians who have lived before us.

One of my favorite individuals from church history is the great Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius. In fact, we went down, Pastor Moore took us down to Manhattan, my wife and I, and we looked at a number of things down there.

We went into the large cathedral and we looked around, and one of the statues I saw was of Athanasius. It struck me that Athanasius was standing there holding closely to his heart the scriptures themselves.

There is a reason for that. Athanasius stood against the majority of the established church in his day. When the Council of Nicaea was finished, this was not the end of the argument, and the vast majority of the church of his day turned from the deity of Christ to an Arian position.

He was even disfellowshipped by Liberius, the Bishop of Rome, under pressure from the emperor. He was kicked out of his church five times, one time 5 ,000 soldiers coming in the front door and he going out the back.

And yet, he would not give in, hence the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum, Athanasius against the world. But why did he do that? We are forever in his debt for his faithfulness. But why did he do that?

Because of what he said. Let me quote to you his words. Let this then Christ-loving man be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline and a short compass of the faith of Christ and of his divine appearing usward.

But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said.

For they were spoken and written by God through men who spoke for God.". Rather than finding O 'Brien's idea that scripture is not a safe guide as to what we are to believe, Athanasius said, quote, for the tokens of scripture are more exact as drawn from scripture than from other sources, end quote.

These other sources included church councils such as that of Nicaea, which Athanasius defended strongly. And he also said, but since holy scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters to read the divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention and for the sake of which principally I have written these things.

And he also said these words, and I believe exactly as he. For indeed the holy and God-breathed scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth. Now how did that Protestant end up in the church so long ago?

He stands against the majority of the church. He stands against councils. And he says, no, I will not give in on the deity of Christ. And the reason is simple. It's not what the scriptures teach. What is his ultimate authority?

And my closing comments here, I'd like to challenge Jerry to a few things. I'd like to challenge him to prove the existence of another infallible rule of faith by tracing some of the doctrines that have been defined by the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of that tradition.

Possibly he can pick up where we left off a year ago and trace for us the bodily assumption of Mary through church history to the apostles. Possibly if he uses 2 Thessalonians 2 .15, he would be willing to do that.

I'd also like to point out that a belief in such doctrines as the bodily assumption or papal infallibility is the clearest indication of sola ecclesia, the idea that the church is the ultimate authority.

For neither the Bible nor tradition teach this. Hence, why is it that a Roman Catholic believes these things? Because his ultimate authority, which is the church, tells him to do so. And I close with these words.

The Lord Jesus, when encountering individuals who claim they had traditions that were, in fact, divine in origin and were passed down orally over centuries, said the following. Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men.

He was also saying to them, you are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, honor your father and your mother, and he who speaks evil of father and mother is to be put to death.

But you say, if a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is core bound, that is, given to God, you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother. Thus, invalidating the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down and you do many such things as that.

Please remember, folks, the Jews claim their traditions came from God, were given to Moses, were passed down orally outside of Scripture. And Jesus said, if anyone comes to you and claims they have a tradition, even if they say it's divine, you have a way of testing it.

And you'll be held responsible for testing it, and you test it by that which is God-breathed. You test it by the Scriptures. Thank you. Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

I'm grateful that Mr. White, for whom I have a great affection after these many years of debate, cited that passage as pivotal to our time together tonight. And the fact that he took a significant portion of his time to attempt to deflect the force of that passage indicates that he is well aware that this passage poses, at least in the hands of a Catholic apologist, a potential threat to the concept of sola scriptura.

I'm also grateful that he quoted St. Mark, chapter 7, verse 8. That, of course, was 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 15. And in St. Mark, chapter 7, verse 8, our Lord says, neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.

Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. I could not agree more with what Chris Arnson said in introducing this evening. That our purpose here is to pursue the truth, to proclaim the truth, and to do so in love.

I am here because by the grace of God, I love my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whom I encountered as a young man of 14 who was neither Protestant nor Catholic through a Billy Graham crusade telecast, and to whose sovereign rule over my life I committed myself by the grace of God at the age of 14.

I vowed at that time that I would follow Jesus Christ wherever He leads. And I vowed that I would follow His truth and His word wherever that leads. And I made a solemn vow to God that I would be a Bible-believing Christian to my dying day and by the grace of God throughout eternity.

And it was in obedience to that summons of Jesus Christ to follow His word, His truth, and to reject the traditions of men, of mere men, that as astounding as this might sound to your Evangelical-ers, if you're Protestants this evening, that I made the very anguished and agonizing but absolutely rewarding decision to reject, among many others, this particular tradition of men known as sola scriptura.

My entire presentation tonight can be simply summed up in the one sentence that every Bible-believing Christian here, Jerry Matiticks, James White, and everybody in this room, whether you call yourself Catholic or Protestant, that everybody in this room ought to reject sola scriptura for one simple reason.

It is a tradition of men. It is not the word of God. There is no statement in the Scriptures themselves, and Mr. White so far has not given us one. He certainly will have a chance to attempt that if he can in his rebuttal periods or cross-examination or perhaps closing statement.

There is not a single statement in the word of God written, sacred Scripture, that says that Scripture itself is the only word of God, that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

The motto is sola scriptura. Scripture alone is God's inspired, infallible word. And that statement is not to be found. So if you believe in sola scriptura, then you have to disbelieve in it by a very straightforward linear logic.

In other words, if your principle tonight is, I only believe what is taught in the pages of sacred Scripture, then you cannot believe in sola scriptura because that is in fact not taught. Now Mr. White has already, even in his opening statement, engaged in a very subtle and sneaky shifting of the burden of proof.

He has said, Mr. Maddox perhaps can demonstrate to us that there is another infallible source. I would be happy to do that in another debate on the authority of the church or the authority of sacred tradition.

He said perhaps we can pick up where we left off last year and let's discuss Sumerian doctrines. I am not going to succumb to the temptation he has placed before me to distract you, whom I am here to serve, from the central issue.

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura? The burden of proof in this debate, we have had many debates, and sometimes the burden of proof is upon Mr. White, sometimes upon myself. A debate holds forth a proposition.

It puts out a statement. It says, I am going to prove this is true, in other words, I am going to prove that it is false. The statement tonight is that Scripture itself teaches that it is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Mr. White made that statement. I wrote it down verbatim as he stated in his opening presentation. That makes Mr. White the one who is the affirmative, who has to shoulder the burden of proof. Can he give us one Bible verse that in fact teaches that?

If he does, then he will win this debate and I will admit it, and I will gladly admit defeat. In fact, I will go further than that. Although it may be difficult for those of you perhaps who don't know me personally, or have a distrust of Roman Catholics in general, and I can understand why you might, if you have not met any that seem to really believe the Bible, I hereby vow to you, as God is my witness, that if sola scriptura, which is the formal principle of the Reformation, can be established tonight, if it can be shown to be true from the Bible itself, which I, like every faithful Catholic, accept as the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God.

On that Mr. White and I are in agreement. The Catholic Church's teaching on what the Bible is, is exactly identical to the teaching of any conservative Protestant. That it is God's inspired theopneustos, as Mr. White reminded us, St. Paul calls it in 2 Timothy 3 .16, it is God's inspired and therefore infallible and inerrant word.

That this is God's word we do not deny. That is not the issue tonight. The issue is, is this the only medium that God himself has selected to convey and to communicate his word in an infallible fashion to his people?

And the biblical testimony is clearly no, but if Mr. White can show us that the Bible does teach sola scriptura, then I will gladly admit that the Catholic Church is wrong. And I will gladly come back to evangelical, reformed Christianity.

That is how seriously I take his challenge and that is how seriously I take the teaching of the Bible. I will submit to what the Bible itself states. But I know from having had many of these debates and from having read Protestant literature, that I do not believe Mr. White is going to be able to produce a verse which really teaches this.

Which says that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith in practice. That is what sola means. Now, after endlessly frustrated attempts on the part of Protestant apologists to come up with such a verse, they then shifted the ground again and say, you know, we don't have to show you anywhere in the Bible that the Bible is the only rule of faith.

We simply have to show that the Bible is sufficient. Well, that is not what sola means. But I will even meet Mr. White on that lowered level. If he wants to change the rules of the game and say I am not for sola scriptura in the original meaning of what the word sola scriptura means, I am simply for the sufficiency of scripture.

Then I ask him to provide even a verse that teaches us that. And there is no such verse to be found. What do we find when we look at the testimony of the two testaments that are our common ground this evening?

We find that again and again the word of God is conveyed and communicated in ways other than a written one. And Mr. White admitted that in his presentation. He has to admit it because it is by God's oral word that he created the world.

He didn't write it on some magic slate or some cosmic blackboard. And yet, when he dictated that divine decalogue ten times stating in Genesis 1 as is recorded there, and God said, and God said, let there be light, let the animals be fruitful and multiply and so forth.

In each of those cases it was God's word, omnipotent, inspired, authoritative, absolutely trustworthy. And yet it wasn't written down. So too was God's word as it came to Adam and Eve, to Cain and Abel, to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, to Noah before those patriarchs.

And yet in none of these instances, as far as we can tell from the record, was it written down. Even when it begins to be written down at the time of Moses, it is clear from the five books of Moses that God revealed himself to Moses and stated things to Moses that are not completely recorded in the books that we have by the names of Deuteronomy and Leviticus and Numbers and Exodus and Genesis.

We know that the word of God was passed on down from Moses to Joshua and through a whole line of prophets, many of whom did not write books. The prophet Elijah could say to his generation, thus saith the Lord.

And he didn't have to simply produce a scroll for that word of God to be taken seriously and to see that it was binding upon the consciences of its listeners. When we get to the New Testament, God's modus operandi has not changed one whit because the word becomes flesh, not book, but flesh and dwells among us.

The word of God is, first of all, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, who became incarnate God in the flesh. And all of his words were inspired, authoritative, and binding upon their conscience.

By those words, he said, his generation would be judged on the last day, even though our Lord never wrote any of them down. And when the end of our Lord's ministry had arrived, he did not say, now I've got to check into some motel somewhere and write everything down carefully or there's no way to transmit this truth in the ages to come to subsequent generations like the people that will be here tonight at this place in Baldwin, New York.

Our Lord selected and sent forth men as the Father had sent him forth and inspired them with his spirit and commissioned them to be his mouthpieces in the world. Just as he had sent out the Twelve during the earthly ministry and indeed the Seventy and said to the Seventy, for example, and then applies a fortiori to the Twelve in Luke 10, 16, whoever hears you hears me and whoever rejects you rejects me.